Overbear: better 10 innocent men be convicted, than a single guilty man go free to commit more crime.Overbear: I prefer that I be given a license to shoot anyone who would pick socialism or communism over the basic freedoms inherent to consumerism.MatrixBaller04 AKA EricS6661: I can guarantee something will happen between now and February 9th.yesme: i'm not saying you should invest in gold first off, you would be much better off to invest in food,stuff you use and will keep for a couple of years, like razorsBlake360: in highschool, my teacher's father worked for the CIA and she brought my class documents proving the Roswell crash was of extraterrestrial origin.

What I'm stating is a fact. It's a fact because nobody has yet to refute it. That fact is that there is no conclusive study to show that being gay is innately harmful to a society. Try to run around that all you want, but it will still remain until you provide me with such a study.

This, here, is why I get upset... illiteracy and stupidity.

Please, I invite you to show me where I said AIDS was exclusive to anal sex. In fact, if you don't mind me requoting the very post you're responding to, I'd like to point something out:

Key words: more prone

I would've figured that to be a very simple connection. I think it's blatantly obvious by the time most people reach 13 year of age that AIDS can be contracted by anyone.

Wait, what?

1 - Since when are you required to help anyone? That's your choice.

2 - AIDS could be in anyone, so you are running the same risk any time you help someone that is bleeding excessively.

3 - Leave medicinal practices to the medicinally trained. There are a plethora of bad things that can happen to you if you transfuse blood. This is why the trained professional wear protective equipment such as latex gloves.

You still don't have an actual argument as to if homosexuals harm people or not. You're only arguments thus far have been based on personal decisions and therefore, are personal issues relative to the individual. It is not innate. These "arguments" do not show that gays innately harm others. You're only saying that the smaller percentage of those infected with AIDS (even though AIDS is present in a higher percentage of homosexuals, there are still more gays not infected than are) might give you a problem, should you choose to help them in the odd chance that one is in a horrifying accident that involves traumatic blood loss.

Talk about a situational argument. I'd like to invite this entire forum to tell me if such an event has ever happened to them. If so, maybe the 1 out of tens of thousands of people may be considered at risk. You're more likely to be harmed in a car accident than to be harmed by a gay person in this matter. Might as well stop driving cars...

Breath brother... breath. Do not let the internet get the best of you.

Breath brother... breath. Do not let the internet get the best of you.

The internet doesn't get to me. A large percentage of this country's population that holds blind bias against those who do no harm to anyone is what gets to me. This world would do better with some real education. When such infantile ideals are still being pursued out of sheer hatred of people for being "different," I lose hope in humanity. Your arguments stem from absolutely no evidential findings and have no foundation other than a skewed sense of moral superiority because some book (which also has literally zero evidential backing) might have said so 2,000 years ago.

Some simple knowledge would allow us to move on past this "issue" and others like it so that we can focus on more important topic within the country. It's time being spent on the wrong issue for the wrong reasons.

I'm not going to sugar coat things, especially when it's racist or a form of bigotry. You have no actual foundation for your disliking of an entire populace. You're actively pursuing to make their lives worse when they do absolutely no harm to you. You're the one depriving others of their basic rights. Of course I'm not going to let your "reasoning" slide.

__________________“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

The internet doesn't get to me. A large percentage of this country's population that holds blind bias against those who do no harm to anyone is what gets to me. This world would do better with some real education. When such infantile ideals are still being pursued out of sheer hatred of people for being "different," I lose hope in humanity. Your arguments stem from absolutely no evidential findings and have no foundation other than a skewed sense of moral superiority because some book (which also has literally zero evidential backing) might have said so 2,000 years ago.

Some simple knowledge would allow us to move on past this "issue" and others like it so that we can focus on more important topic within the country. It's time being spent on the wrong issue for the wrong reasons.

I'm not going to sugar coat things, especially when it's racist or a form of bigotry. You have no actual foundation for your disliking of an entire populace. You're actively pursuing to make their lives worse when they do absolutely no harm to you. You're the one depriving others of their basic rights. Of course I'm not going to let your "reasoning" slide.

Yes when all else fails.... attack their moral beliefs and religious beliefs. Generalization works both ways. Sorry but the site is not related to any religious affiliation in any way. They have every right as any other person in the United States. I never said their rights should be stripped... that is your own twisted fantasy of what you thought I said. It is the federal Government that says they should not get married... not me. Also this has nothing to do with race or bigotry.... but you sir are in fact a bigot who hate those who do not share your way of thinking. I pointed out facts related to the issue and all you have done is lashed out in insults and your own opinion.... so I will say this... quit saying what you hate unless you are not doing the same. Fallow what you say and do dont put on people what you fail to do yourself.

Bud, your first post in this cluster**** of a thread stated you think being a diddler is the same as being a homosexual. From there on you've dismissed all things scientific and have religious moral overtones bleeding through the fabric of every post you make. You even went on to try and make the claim that homosexual sex between two men (you ignore lesbians) causes AIDS.

Yes when all else fails.... attack their moral beliefs and religious beliefs. Generalization works both ways. Sorry but the site is not related to any religious affiliation in any way. They have every right as any other person in the United States. I never said their rights should be stripped... that is your own twisted fantasy of what you thought I said. It is the federal Government that says they should not get married... not me. Also this has nothing to do with race or bigotry.... but you sir are in fact a bigot who hate those who do not share your way of thinking. I pointed out facts related to the issue and all you have done is lashed out in insults and your own opinion.... so I will say this... quit saying what you hate unless you are not doing the same. Fallow what you say and do dont put on people what you fail to do yourself.

Feeling victimized for your inability to garner a sufficient argument?

The Federal Government doesn't say yes or no to these marriages; it's state-run. Those states that don't allow civil unions or gay marriage are the states that are mostly religious. If you can't see the stranglehold that religion has on this issue, then you might as well declare yourself legally blind. Nobody that isn't religious has a single shred of valid argument to disallow equal rights for homosexuals. Meanwhile, the religious can only cling on to ancient text.

The point is, there is no valid reason for the mistreatment of an entire group of people that do absolutely no harm to anyone.

You can't turn around and call someone a bigot for calling out someone else's bigotry. Doesn't work that way. Label me what you want, but you are the one showing inequality to a group of people for no reason. Because you have no reason, I will call you out on that. I have a reason to label you a bigot; you're being one. You're so against an entire populace of people for absolutely no other reason than "they're different."

You are right though. I don't like others who follow such childish beliefs and dislike people without reason. I'm so sorry that I want people to be happy and to have equal opportunity and equal rights.

Your poor use of the English language, your absence of knowledge as to how anal sex increases the chance of contracting STIs, your void of understanding the AIDS virus, your lack of reasoning to show a conclusive link between homosexuality and pedophilia, and your inability to provide a sufficient evidential finding to support that gays are innately harmful to society leads to me to call a finish to this debate. Your views of gays are based off... nothing. In short: you're wrong.If you can at least admit that, you'll be getting somewhere.

You tried to show that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia, but there is a massive distinction between the two: gay sex is something that occurs between two consenting adults whereas pedophilia is often harmful to children, whether that harm be mental or physical.

__________________“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Try actually finding the reason for the high percentage of AIDS, rather than making up an excuse. It's pretty well-known and tracked that AIDS did, in fact, come from monkeys. What that person was doing with that monkey to contract the disease, I won't bother about discussing

Dave Chappel takes a stab at this one..."Word?"

__________________
I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.]-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799http://abaddoncomic.com/

Feeling victimized for your inability to garner a sufficient argument?

The Federal Government doesn't say yes or no to these marriages; it's state-run. Those states that don't allow civil unions or gay marriage are the states that are mostly religious. If you can't see the stranglehold that religion has on this issue, then you might as well declare yourself legally blind. Nobody that isn't religious has a single shred of valid argument to disallow equal rights for homosexuals. Meanwhile, the religious can only cling on to ancient text.

The point is, there is no valid reason for the mistreatment of an entire group of people that do absolutely no harm to anyone.

You can't turn around and call someone a bigot for calling out someone else's bigotry. Doesn't work that way. Label me what you want, but you are the one showing inequality to a group of people for no reason. Because you have no reason, I will call you out on that. I have a reason to label you a bigot; you're being one. You're so against an entire populace of people for absolutely no other reason than "they're different."

You are right though. I don't like others who follow such childish beliefs and dislike people without reason. I'm so sorry that I want people to be happy and to have equal opportunity and equal rights.

Your poor use of the English language, your absence of knowledge as to how anal sex increases the chance of contracting STIs, your void of understanding the AIDS virus, your lack of reasoning to show a conclusive link between homosexuality and pedophilia, and your inability to provide a sufficient evidential finding to support that gays are innately harmful to society leads to me to call a finish to this debate. Your views of gays are based off... nothing. In short: you're wrong.If you can at least admit that, you'll be getting somewhere.

You tried to show that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia, but there is a massive distinction between the two: gay sex is something that occurs between two consenting adults whereas pedophilia is often harmful to children, whether that harm be mental or physical.

LOL... you sir are full of it. All your spewing is congecture and not fact. I stated the two theories. One of which being that it was contracted by man on man sex. And sorry but you are wrong yet again... it is not a whole populace that is gay... but 4% of it. Yes. you are a bigot trying to call me on a religious argument when I have not mentioned one thing about religion. Keep spewing the hate as that is all you have to come up with. Hate and insults to push you own beliefs and try to push them on everyone that does not see it your way. Also you are wrong... the whole agenda of getting the states to recognize gay marriage is so they have something to push at the federal level as the federal government does not recognize it so civil unions of same sex can not file taxes as a married couple.

Also on the pedo thing... It was not me that said it was equal... it was a doctor of psychiatry and his peers. Also if you dig a little deaper... the way the mental health people see pedophilia... they had seen homosexuality the same way... then they changed it as it became more acceptable.

I have spoken with both sides on this issue and by that came to my own conclusion as to how I feel about the subject. I could care less if someone is gay... do I agree with it... no. But they have their rights and I have mine... mine do not trample their rights... but theirs do as I see marriage as a religious ceremony and not a civil one. but as you can see I have not violated anyones rights nor do I push them on others. What you do in the bedroom is your right... do not make laws to validate one way or another(seperation of church and state). If there is a problem with money and rights... change the tax laws and medical laws. Then same sex couples can file joint with head of household and make medical decisions for their loved ones.

Def. of Bigot: a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race.

So Treghc by this definition you are in fact the bigot here. Mind the fact that it did not state sexual preference in the def. so I can not be a bigot. I believe everyone has a right to his or her own opinion... but do not insult me for not believing the way you do.

LOL... you sir are full of it. All your spewing is congecture and not fact. I stated the two theories. One of which being that it was contracted by man on man sex. And sorry but you are wrong yet again... it is not a whole populace that is gay... but 4% of it. Yes. you are a bigot trying to call me on a religious argument when I have not mentioned one thing about religion. Keep spewing the hate as that is all you have to come up with. Hate and insults to push you own beliefs and try to push them on everyone that does not see it your way. Also you are wrong... the whole agenda of getting the states to recognize gay marriage is so they have something to push at the federal level as the federal government does not recognize it so civil unions of same sex can not file taxes as a married couple.

Also on the pedo thing... It was not me that said it was equal... it was a doctor of psychiatry and his peers. Also if you dig a little deaper... the way the mental health people see pedophilia... they had seen homosexuality the same way... then they changed it as it became more acceptable.

Def. of Bigot: a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race.

So Treghc by this definition you are in fact the bigot here.

Wait, so Treghc is the bigot because he feels that homosexuals : 1) Harm no one. 2) Should have the same protetions under the law as ever other United States CITIZEN. I don't get it.
I shudder to think what your side would do to gays in this country if given the opportunity/free reign. Incidently, (since you kind of dance around it, ill ask) how should gays be treated accoridng to your christian values. What should happen to them according to the bible?

__________________
I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.]-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799http://abaddoncomic.com/

Also, AIDS was first found in 1959. Most likely the source of transmission was from infected blood inoculating a hunter. Although thanks to racists like saint, an idea is propagated that African blacks are subhuman and have sex with non-human primates.

Wait, so Treghc is the bigot because he feels that homosexuals : 1) Harm no one. 2) Should have the same protetions under the law as ever other United States CITIZEN. I don't get it.
I shudder to think what your side would do to gays in this country if given the opportunity/free reign. Incidently, (since you kind of dance around it, ill ask) how should gays be treated accoridng to your christian values. What should happen to them according to the bible?

Just as my stance is... I am an American and believe everyone has rights by which our constitutions states. Those who harm others because of sexual orientation should be put on trial for assult with the maximum sentence allowable with no possibility of early parole.... so yes it would be a good thing.

For pedo's... the death penalty as long as their is DNA evidence to convict

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volucris

Also, AIDS was first found in 1959. Most likely the source of transmission was from infected blood inoculating a hunter. Although thanks to racists like saint, an idea is propagated that African blacks are subhuman and have sex with non-human primates.

Sorry but your own made up story and nothing to back it up. Visit the sight I posted on aids and they will fill you in. How did you get on the subject of racisim... you need to work on your reading skills because I do not remember writing anything to that nature so again... more insults and lack of fact.

Also I am an American but my ancestors were aztecs and apache... so not sure where you are going with this. YOu might want to find another thread to troll in.

I have spoken with both sides on this issue and by that came to my own conclusion as to how I feel about the subject. I could care less if someone is gay... do I agree with it... no. But they have their rights and I have mine... mine do not trample their rights... but theirs do as I see marriage as a religious ceremony and not a civil one. but as you can see I have not violated anyones rights nor do I push them on others. What you do in the bedroom is your right... do not make laws to validate one way or another(seperation of church and state). If there is a problem with money and rights... change the tax laws and medical laws. Then same sex couples can file joint with head of household and make medical decisions for their loved ones.

If marriage is a religious institution, how come you can get married by simply signing a legal document? The religious ceremony isn't what makes a marriage legitimate, the legal documents are. Which leads me to believe it isn't religious at all.

If marriage is a religious institution, how come you can get married by simply signing a legal document? The religious ceremony isn't what makes a marriage legitimate, the legal documents are. Which leads me to believe it isn't religious at all.

I have always wondered the same thing. You need a state license. I guess it is all about the money.

I have always wondered the same thing. You need a state license. I guess it is all about the money.

I've always seen it as two different requirements, one to make it legitimate in the eyes of the government (the marriage license) and one to make it legitimate in the eyes of the church and god (being married by a priest and having witnesses, for example. As long as gay couples aren't trying to fulfill the requirements to have a legitimate marriage in the eyes of the church, I don't see the problem.

[quote=saint;73358699]Just as my stance is... I am an American and believe everyone has rights by which our constitutions states. Those who harm others because of sexual orientation should be put on trial for assult with the maximum sentence allowable with no possibility of early parole.... so yes it would be a good thing.QUOTE]

This right here is what Treghc has been trying to pin down, and frankly so have i in reading the back-and-forth between you two.

Exactly how do you "harm others because of sexual orientation?" What constitutes 'assault' by sexual orientation. Please explain. Because If there is a chance that gay sex between two men / women will put me or my family in any kind of dangerous situation (somhow?) i'd like to take the proper precautions.

Again, please explain.

__________________
I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.]-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799http://abaddoncomic.com/

Just as my stance is... I am an American and believe everyone has rights by which our constitutions states. Those who harm others because of sexual orientation should be put on trial for assult with the maximum sentence allowable with no possibility of early parole.... so yes it would be a good thing.QUOTE]

This right here is what Treghc has been trying to pin down, and frankly so have i in reading the back-and-forth between you two.

Exactly how do you "harm others because of sexual orientation?" What constitutes 'assault' by sexual orientation. Please explain. Because If there is a chance that gay sex between two men / women will put me or my family in any kind of dangerous situation (somhow?) i'd like to take the proper precautions.

Again, please explain.

Rape dudes? Rape chicks? Rape kids? Rape animals?

Answered.

__________________--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick HenryI'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker techingWill soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts

I have always wondered the same thing. You need a state license. I guess it is all about the money.

You don't need a religious ceremony to get married. As a matter of fact, my church requested our marriage license (purchased from our county tax collector) BEFORE authorizing any kind of religious ceremony.

No one here (that i can recall) ever made the argument for religious groups to change or 'redefine' what marriage is in their little private clubs. Homosexuals do however deserve the opportunity to go downtown, purchase, their own licene, and live legaly married under the eyes OF THE STATE. If they can find a church that will mary them, then good for them, if not, then oh well, but they should have the right to have that document that binds them legaly.

__________________
I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.]-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799http://abaddoncomic.com/